Truth and its pursuit

[bevin]

1 Some actual facts recorded in scripture can be examined through other paths - the locations of cities, the acts of famous people, some public events.

2 Some styles-of-living can be examined through other paths - does it match what archaeology tells us of the period, what other books describe

3 Others are simply unreachable - they have left no impact on our modern world. Some of these are (a) trivia, others are ( God's working quietly in peoples lives, and others are © miracles.

Since 1&2 are usually about phenomona within the range of modern science, they don't help us validate 3abc

3a doesn't matter

3b we can experience for ourselves, and see in lives around us

3c miracles - I have read and seen too many examples of Christian's exagerating and misreporting events to be certain that all the can't-detect-any-more Biblical miracles happened. I believe in miracles, there have been some things in my life that I personally put in that category, but I can't be sure that they were and certainly can't prove to you that they were.

The biggest events in the Bible that Christian's typically claim as miracles were Creation and The Flood.

Both of these should have left huge traces in the Earth. My study of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that they did not happen in the literal way described in the Bible - the evidence in the Earth points to long age evolution.

No axiom of truth is needed, because we can confirm for ourselves the important points. The things that can be doubted are not critical, and nothing is to be gained by affirming certainty about them.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

1 Some actual facts recorded in scripture can be examined through other paths - the locations of cities, the acts of famous people, some public events.

[bevin]

Hence what is needed is an method for making the observations and interpreting them that is not arbitrary, and which has a track record of leading to correct conclusions.

The track record of the method is its repeated production of devices that correctly predict surprising results that turn out to be correct.

The scientific method has such a track record.

It has a vast array of successful devices to its credit.

/Bevin

[D. Allan]

You are involved in scientific explication of the Bible, or rather in the autheticity of it's historicity? To me the Bible is not about science. Even historical accuracy is beside the point. In my view it is the experiential(subjective truth) not the experimental (objective truth) it aims for.

The objective and experimental is important and interesting, but not of first concern. Seek ye first the kingdom (spiritual=subjective) and all these things (material=objective) will be added. IOW they are nice but not essential.

Back to the objective! :)

[David Koot]

Even historical accuracy is beside the point. In my view it is the experiential(subjective truth) not the experimental (objective truth) it aims for. The objective and experimental is important and interesting, but not of first concern. Seek ye first the kingdom (spiritual=subjective) and all these things (material=objective) will be added. IOW they are nice but not essential.

Now that, my dear fellow--THAT is, indeed the crux of the matter. That goes to the very essence of the entire question of validity of a religious belief.

Do you recognize that what you have stated here, is the very--the very same thing that the Hindu religion teaches? To wit: ignore the empirical, bypass the consciousness, the rational nature, and experience God 'experientially,' personally, subjectively. THAT, also, is the VERY thing the Mormons teach. I have had discussions with them on many occasions, and I know that is what they teach. That is what their missionaries urge prospects to do.

THAT, also, will IMO be the foundation of the final great deception, which the whole world will believe--except for a tiny group of empiricists, who stubbornly adhere to the written Word, in black and white, as it appears and reads.

And THAT, I propose, is one reason why THIS DISCUSSION is so critically important. Decisions weighted with eternal consequences hang upon these issues.

Dave

[bevin]

On the one hand, I believe that the scientific method has the most likelyhood of actually producing a correct description of the real world.

On the other hand, I believe that God guides all people, regardless of whether they are strongly-motivated-by-evidence like me, or strongly-motivated-by-experience like dAB

I don't think people really get a lot of choice about what motivates them - but God meets both groups where they are

/Bevin

[David Koot]

On the other hand, I believe that God guides all people, regardless of whether they are strongly-motivated-by-evidence like me, or strongly-motivated-by-experience like dAB

[David Koot]

The scientific method has such a track record.

The scientific method is something I believe in. However, the science establishment does not in every case conduct 'pure science.' Crucial assumptions are made in a number of cases, sometimes evidence which doesn't fit the 'model' is either ignored or explained away, and so forth. And yes, politics and ideology rule. Scientists need recognition--'publish or perish'--and in order to get recognition they will need to worship the 'sacred cows' of the science establishment. Otherwise, they may be ignored or even ridiculed.

Dave

[Amelia]

So how long do you think it will take for you guys to find the truth? Seems a thread of this type is more a circle of contradictions than a straight line to truth. How many people in agreement constitutes a truth?

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Do you recognize that what you have stated here, is the very--the very same thing that the Hindu religion teaches? To wit: ignore the empirical, bypass the consciousness, the rational nature, and experience God 'experientially,' personally, subjectively. THAT, also, is the VERY thing the Mormons teach. I have had discussions with them on many occasions, and I know that is what they teach. That is what their missionaries urge prospects to do.

As one of my favorite Adventist pastors said to me, "Truth is truth no matter where you find it."

Morman and Hindus are not my models. Especially Mormans who validate their beliefs by seeking a mystical confirmation. Hindus are so various in what they might believe that it hard to know what to say. My model is Jesus who said, My father and I are one. And seek first the kingdom of heaven.

Anyway, sorry to have interruped your scientific discussion; I'm interested in the outcome.

[bevin]

Quote:

Crucial assumptions are made in a number of cases, sometimes evidence which doesn't fit the 'model' is either ignored or explained away, and so forth.

Yes, this does happen - but science is self-correcting, and the ill-fitting evidence its revisited and explained.

In my experience the much more common scenario is people not liking the evidence going against their current opinion, and preferring to claim the evidence and its interpretation is wrong rather than change their opinion.

How does one determine whether it is the other persons assessment that is wrong, or one's own assessment?

In the case of evolution, I think David and I have come from similar backgrounds to completely different solutions - I have changed my opinion from being a creationist to being an evolutionist, whereas David - facing the same material - has decided it is the evidence/interpretation that is wrong so that he can be a creationist.

How does one decide which path they should take when facing this fork? How should we treat others who took a different path?

/Bevin

[David Koot]

who validate their beliefs by seeking a mystical confirmation.

[David Koot]

How does one determine whether it is the other persons assessment that is wrong, or one's own assessment?

[phkrause]

Dave, That's great advice. I personally have not dug as deep as you and Bevin have. But I think that people should be aloud to believe as they choose without being called stupid, ignorant, etc. I choose to except the words of the Bible with no questions asked. I except God's word by Faith. Now that doesn't mean that I haven't studied to the best of my limit abilities.

pkrause

[D. Allan]

And I '2nd the motion.' That is good advice indeed, David!

[bevin]

All of which leads to the obvious question - if such tolerance is to be practised, and if there is no obvious compelling reason why the creationist view is right and the evolutionist view is wrong,

what should the SDA church's stated position and membership requirement be in this regard?

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Quote:

How does one decide which path they should take when facing this fork?

A vitally important question.

Well, I have decided in my life what I do under such situations

(a) decide if the matter is important - if not, study it only if it is interesting

( if it is important, admit that the result is uncertain, and study the matter deeper - look more deeply into the evidence, if possible, or into the expert's lives and analyses if it is not

/Bevin

[David Koot]

All of which leads to the obvious question - if such tolerance is to be practised, and if there is no obvious compelling reason why the creationist view is right and the evolutionist view is wrong,

what should the SDA church's stated position and membership requirement be in this regard?

/Bevin

Okay, here is the Fundamental Belief as it currently reads:

"6. Creation:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work . . ."

The wording appears quite similar to Exodus 20:11:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

Okay, so there we have it. The SDA Fundamental Belief mirroring the Bible's statement.

Where do we go from here?

[David Koot]

I say, David, that IS quite a picture you have posted! Is that your present appearance, or at some other time? (And, I should add, it fits the bill for a pianist! I enjoy the piano, too BTW. I have an 1873 square grand with a beautiful tone, but the action is a bit slow.)

D

[David Koot]

How does one determine whether it is the other persons assessment that is wrong, or one's own assessment?

A most interesting question for an empiricist to consider. Of course, for an existentialist, the answer is quite elementary: that is, each person's assessment is right, FOR THAT PERSON! However, such subjectivisim is not what we are addressing here.

Now, to the merits . . . For an object, where two observers disagree on the physical, measurable characteristics of the object, resort may be made to instruments which can measure the characterics. For example, two astronomers dispute the type of star they are observing, and its distance. The solution is simpe: train a spectrograph on it, identify the spectral lines present and the amount of red shift. Case closed.

However, when the objects or events occurred or were present in the past, then the unknowns become so huge as to, in many cases, be unamangeable. Models must be developed, which reflect what the student thinks has occurred in the past. Assumptions are unavoidable. Too many times, a student must simply roll the craps. How may one decide if s/he has shot sevens or a snakeyes? That is, indeed, the nature of the question.

Where I find much agreement with the approach Bevin has propounded, is in the nature of inquiry and the importance of the scientific method. Where I disagree, is in the following areas:

1) Assumptions made about the past;

2) How to deal with evidence that does not appear to fit the model;

3) The power and pervasive influence of the science establishment and its impact upon scientific inquiry.

Upon reflection, I am not so sanguine about human/scientific ability to decipher the past. in the end I come up with the conclusion that, when we are attempting to make sense out of the past, assumptions are unavoidable. In many cases, evidence about the past could fit into different models. The assumptions the student makes will determine which model s/he chooses to accept.

Dave

[bevin]

Quote:

Upon reflection, I am not so sanguine about human/scientific ability to decipher the past. in the end I come up with the conclusion that, when we are attempting to make sense out of the past, assumptions are unavoidable. In many cases, evidence about the past could fit into different models. The assumptions the student makes will determine which model s/he chooses to accept.

The errors in a model come from a spectrum of sources. Simplified the errors come in because

(a) each step is an approximation, and

( there may be few or many steps.

In the case of origins of the earth, we have to

(a) very detailed initial state, and

( very detailed physics and chemistry and biology, and

© very detailed observations of the world today

And we use the ( rules to play the (a) conditions forward in time, just as a weather forecaster, or a car driver, or a cook, does to predict the state at each point in time. Then, when when we reach today, we compare our predicted state with the world around us.

The evolutionary model, with its assumed initial conditions and its assumed continuation of the various equations that predict the world around us, accurately predicts where various types of rocks are found, the strength and orientation of the magnetic field in those rocks, and the fossils in those rocks.

The important point is "it makes correct predictions".

No creationists have found a similarly powerful model that has creation and a flood as its initial conditions, uses the same physics and chemistry, and makes equally detailed correct predictions.

No creationists have found a significant case where the evolutionary model makes incorrect predictions.

Given this situation, it is apparently belief in something aside from the ability to predict that leads creationists to reject the evolutionary model and prefer a very vague alternative with no proven predictive power.

/Bevin

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I say, David, that IS quite a picture you have posted! Is that your present appearance, or at some other time? (And, I should add, it fits the bill for a pianist! I enjoy the piano, too BTW. I have an 1873 square grand with a beautiful tone, but the action is a bit slow.)

Perhaps in a previous life, Dave. HaHa. You are right that Ignace Jan Paderewski really does look like a pianist. I thought he looked somewhat like Bob Dylan (and me in the days when I had hair.)

I've got a 1960's Baldwin 6'1" grand (built by Kawai). And that's the truth (getting somewhat back on topic.)

I bet Bevin has a piano too.

[bevin]

Yes - and I tune it myself with the aid of some electronics...

/Bevin

[D. Allan]

That's the way to go. Piano tuners are getting quite expensive.

[David Koot]

True, but it can be quite a job. And there is the risk of breaking strings, among other things.